Is this socialism?

[demagogic_schizoid]

London's Mayor Ken Livingstone has signed a deal with Venezuela's state oil company which will, according to the mayor, mean a 20 per cent reduction in the price of fuel for London's bus fleet.

According to this press release: http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=10936

After discussion between Petr?leos de Venezuela Europa and the Mayor this benefit will be targeted on Londoners receiving income support who will be able to receive a 50 per cent discount on bus and tram travel ? up to 250,000 Londoners will be eligible. London will provide specialist technical assistance to Venezuelan cities in areas such transport, protection of the environment, development of tourism, and town planning.

Minister of the Popular Power [!] for Foreign Affairs Nicolas Maduro said:


?This agreement will strengthen relationships between the peoples of London and Venezuela. It is a win-win strategy that fits within the policy of integration and the character of the Bolivarian Government of President Hugo Chavez.?

Alejandro Granado, PDVSA?s Vice-President of refining and PSDV Europa?s Chairman of the Management Board said:

?Venezuela is very rich in energetic resources while London has great expertise in successfully managing the infrastructure services that characterise a modern city. It is, therefore, very fitting that this co-operative initiative, proposed by President Chavez, focuses on these two areas of complementarity. This agreement, I am sure, will promote solidarity and bring forward mutual benefits for both the people of Venezuela and London.?

Now, what troubles me is this - Venezuela's GDP per head is $6,000 and London's is $50,000. London could comfrotably afford to subsidize cheaper public transport for it's inhabitants (in fact prices have risen steadily since Livingstone came to power), but instead, we are taking subsidized oil from a less developed country. I don't know if I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that Chavez is treating Venezuela's resources as his own and giving away this potential source of great wealth for his people in order to enjoy political support from abroad and expand his profile and power base - ie exactly what he accused his predecessors of doing. I just can't see anything socialist or even left-wing about London getting cheap oil from Venezuela, it seems like outright exploitation. So who on the left will protest against this? For once Ia gree with the words of Venezuela's election loser Manuel rosales, someone I usually don't have that much time for (well Id on't have much time for any politician):


?That is political corruption,? [Rosales], the opposition candidate, told foreign journalists. ?I ask the (London) mayor not to commit that injustice to Venezuela, because he is taking a part of our wealth and doing grave harm to the country.

?It is not just the person that commits the crime, but the accomplice ends up becoming a part of the crime."

[booyalab]

Most likely it will help Venezuela since it should mean an increase in demand for their resource. There's no way it could hurt them. Unless London secretly needs the oil for it's WMDs to wipe the country off the map.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Most likely it will help Venezuela since it should mean an increase in demand for their resource.

Couldn't this be acheived by internal consumption rather than giving it, below the market rate, to one of the richest cities in the world?

[HilbertSpace]

Couldn't this be acheived by internal consumption rather than giving it, below the market rate, to one of the richest cities in the world?

Not if what they need is foreign currency.

I don't actually see how this works out badly for either party. Leaving the political dimension aside (since I really don't care for either party involved), selling oil to the London bus fleet won't have an appreciable effect on the oil market itself (since it's a trivial amount compared to the world market). It would make London bus transportation cheaper in the near term, so it helps their bottom like. Conceivably, it's also net positive for the exporter's bottom line since I would bet that they're running at fractional capacity at the moment, so any additional sales are going to be added to what they're normally exporting (i.e., they pump the oil for London in addition to what they're already producing for the market).

Say you're a widget manufacturer, and you have the capacity to produce 1000 widgets per day. You're currently producing 750 per day to maintain a higher price than you'd get if you were to increase supply. Now, you make a back-room deal to sell an additional couple of widgets per day at 80% of what you're getting on the market. It's not enough to cut into the market value of the widgets, or enough to get you in trouble with OWEC (Organization of Widget Exporting Countries) - as long as the 80% more than covers the incremental cost of widget production, it's just more gravy for you.

[Dark Razor]

It's not exploitation because Venezuela receives a return in the form of British technology and expertise. This is similar to Venezuela's agreement with Cuba where Cuba sends doctors and medical equipment in return for subsidized oil.

This course of action is essentially the same as if Venezuela would receive full payment and then goes around and purchases those services with the money they earned. What Chavez does now, is that he exchanges his country's oil in exchange for those services directly, which has the additional benefit of strenghening ties with his trading partners. He circumvents the usage of money, so that the people of the region where the subsidized oil goes to hopefuly feel grateful to Venezuela and would then oppose a potential threat, embargo or whatever against Venezuela. This seems like a clever policy, remember, the benefit for the Venezuelan population remains the same as long as the services exchanged for the oil benefit the infrastructure and improve the peoples situation, which they do.

[demagogic_schizoid]

It's not exploitation because Venezuela receives a return in the form of British technology and expertise. This is similar to Venezuela's agreement with Cuba where Cuba sends doctors and medical equipment in return for subsidized oil.

according to the press release, yes. But wouldn't self-styled socialists like Ken Livingstone and Hugo Chavez oppose rich country's giving "aid" (which Venezuela hasn't actually recieved yet) to third world country's in return for bumped-down prices on their natural resources? Isn't this kind of exchange exactly what Chavez accused his predecessors of doing with the US?


This course of action is essentially the same as if Venezuela would receive full payment and then goes around and purchases those services with the money they earned. What Chavez does now, is that he exchanges his country's oil in exchange for those services directly, which has the additional benefit of strenghening ties with his trading partners. He circumvents the usage of money, so that the people of the region where the subsidized oil goes to hopefuly feel grateful to Venezuela and would then oppose a potential threat, embargo or whatever against Venezuela. This seems like a clever policy, remember, the benefit for the Venezuelan population remains the same as long as the services exchanged for the oil benefit the infrastructure and improves the peoples situation, which they do.

you believe that? what in the history of Latin American leaders, and in the history of Europe's dealings with Latin America, backs up your confidence that it's all going to work as Hugo and Ken describe?

[immortalmack]

Hugo is a skilled politician and other politicians recognize it. It's political handshaking for warm relations. Also I think they both recognize Bush as a fading star so other than him why would England care what goes on in a backyard in the Western Hemis.

[Dark Razor]

according to the press release, yes. But wouldn't self-styled socialists like Ken Livingstone and Hugo Chavez oppose rich country's giving "aid" (which Venezuela hasn't actually recieved yet) to third world country's in return for bumped-down prices on their natural resources? Isn't this kind of exchange exactly what Chavez accused his predecessors of doing with the US?


Well, I see this more as an exchange of goods, not "aid", he gives oil and receives technology and technical know-how, which in the long run is much more valuable and also harder to get than just money. If those agreements work out as intended, they will probably further the developement of Venezuela more effectively than the money he would otherwise have received.

Also, in politics, you have to distinguish between what you have to say to be able to implement your goals and what you then do, calling oneself "socialist" does not prohibit you from seeking a pragmatic approach to the problems of your country, which may require you to utilize practices that have nothing to do with socialism, but are nevertheless essential to reach your goal, building a better country.

But by calling yourself socialist you give the simple people something to identify with, explaining to the masses what exactly you are going to do does not work, you need to find some simple buzzwords so that people have something they can strive towards, by keeping it something vague like "socialism" you gain room to manoeuvre. (Also, socialism is not a fixed, unified ideology, it contains many different schools of thought and is, like every theory, constantly evolving.)

And, no it is not what he accused his predecessors of, because what they did was giving away the oil for far to less money, without receiving anything else in return. The main point though was that the riches of Venezuela benefited only the richest one percent or so, like in most other 3rd world countries. He now strives to overcome that and make the wealth that Venezuela possesses more accessible to the general population.




you believe that? what in the history of Latin American leaders, and in the history of Europe's dealings with Latin America, backs up your confidence that it's all going to work as Hugo and Ken describe?

From what I know about Latin American history, there have always emerged leaders who wanted to better the situation of their nations' people, although they were usually overthrown by foreign powers to avoid them from harming the foreign industrie's profits.

As far as Europe is concerned, I think he took a good approach when he choose to deal on a regional basis , e.g. with the city of London as opposed to the British government, this way he can weave a net of many smaller cooperative efforts.
At the same time he and other Latin American countries are strenghening ties with China to reduce their dependency on the USA, this also might offer them some protection from US interventionism, also the US is curently busy elsewhere, which gives those countries a window of oppurtunity to act bolder than they otherwise could.

[zhang_bob]

Unlike capitalists, socialists do not discriminate between citizens of one country and citizens of the world in general. I can't speak for other socialists, but I believe a country has the moral obligation of exploiting it's resources for the greater good of the world.

Under Mr. Chavez Venezuela is selling her oil at a higher price, because it has lowered production to drive up the cost, so he is using the extra money to fund projects he views as a worthy cause. I really don't see what the problem is, it not like we are putting a gun to their head, like we used to basically do.

Also, it not like it is a one way thing. Did you not read the part what said, "London will provide specialist technical assistance to Venezuelan cities in areas such transport, protection of the environment, development of tourism, and town planning"?

So if that means a trade arrangements with Cuba what exchanges training for doctors and other professionals for oil, a barter arrangement that exchange Venezuelan oil for various Argentinean goods, or humanitarian aid to the U.S to help it's people then so be it.




according to the press release, yes. But wouldn't self-styled socialists like Ken Livingstone and Hugo Chavez oppose rich country's giving "aid" (which Venezuela hasn't actually recieved yet) to third world country's in return for bumped-down prices on their natural resources? Isn't this kind of exchange exactly what Chavez accused his predecessors of doing with the US?

I don't remember this being a problem after Hurricane Katrina. After Hurricane Katrina Venezuela was one of the first foreign governments to offer aid to the devastated regions. At first Bush refuse this aid, but he realised later the winter was going to set in, so the U.S. could do with subsidised oil mainly for heating, low income families and the badly affected. The US is still getting this subsidy of cheap oil now.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Well, I see this more as an exchange of goods, not "aid", he gives oil and receives technology and technical know-how, which in the long run is much more valuable and also harder to get than just money. If those agreements work out as intended, they will probably further the developement of Venezuela more effectively than the money he would otherwise have received.

Well firstly you aren't making sense, because the money they receive for their oil can be used for goods and services, and even stored in the national treasury and spent on long term projects, so it's not an "either/or" situation. Perhaps Chavez is worried that if he doesn't directly intervene and dictate who gets "his" oil and when, that it won't be used to benefit his friends or projects which come with his approval stamp and face on them as if they were being paid for out of his own pocket. It seems to me like you are viewing this through rose-tinted spectacles. There have been no concrete details supplied about what exactly Venezuela is getting out of this, doesn't this make alarm bells start to ring? It looks to me like short-term opportunism, Chavez giving his country's resources to his friends in order to raise his profile abroad and become a major player on the world scene, while Venezuela gets little real benefits, just slogans and empty promises.


Also, in politics, you have to distinguish between what you have to say to be able to implement your goals and what you then do, calling oneself "socialist" does not prohibit you from seeking a pragmatic approach to the problems of your country, which may require you to utilize practices that have nothing to do with socialism, but are nevertheless essential to reach your goal, building a better country.

It's not about bulding a better country, it's populism, plain and simple. Venezuela's economic growth has come at the cost of an inflation rate of 15.8%, an average annual devaluation of the Bolivar of 40% since Chavez took power, all of which can be swept under the rug by the time being by vast amounts of oil wealth. But what about when it runs out? Where is Chavez's plan to wean Venezuela off oil dependency? You talk about "building a better country", but despite all Chavez's proclamations, Venezuela still has an unemployment rate rate of 8.9%, while 38% of the population is below the poverty line and the Gini index shows inequality at 49%, which is high even for Latin America. So, bearing this in mind, should London be accepting cheap oil from Venezuela and lending our support to this government. It seems to me like something that the same people in Europe and America who sympathise Chavez would criticise, say, the US for doing, and rightfully so.


And, no it is not what he accused his predecessors of, because what they did was giving away the oil for far to less money, without receiving anything else in return.

They weren't getting anything in return? It's quite odd that they gave it away at all tehn. I'm guessing someone in Venezuela was getting something out of it, and telling the people, via glossy press releases and promises of a better future, that they all were, despite evidence to the contrary. Sound familiar?


The main point though was that the riches of Venezuela benefited only the richest one percent or so, like in most other 3rd world countries. He now strives to overcome that and make the wealth that Venezuela possesses more accessible to the general population.

I'd like to believe that. Seems to me that he is simply creating a handout culture which is only as sutainable as the current oil boom.


From what I know about Latin American history, there have always emerged leaders who wanted to better the situation of their nations' people, although they were usually overthrown by foreign powers to avoid them from harming the foreign industrie's profits.

Well I'd say these leaders want to improve their own situations, not their nation's. What you describe has happened in some country's in Central America, but it's wrong to see it as the typical trend of Latin America, because ultimaely what has usually undone these regimes is their own inability to solve their country's problems. Peron in Argentina for example got away with nationalising the railways, telephones, docks etc. (rightfully so IMO), he took on the "empire" they called him a fascist, he openly offered asylum to Nazis etc., but there was nothing they could really do. What brought him down was when the coallition he had built between domestic capitalists and the working class fell apart, because the money his government had inherited from previous ones and which they had been using to paper over the cracks in their inefficient economic policy finally ran out, and enough people with enough power realised that he couldn't keep his promises to them. I'd say this is more typical of what happens in most Latin American country's than what you described.


At the same time he and other Latin American countries are strenghening ties with China to reduce their dependency on the USA, this also might offer them some protection from US interventionism, also the US is curently busy elsewhere, which gives those countries a window of oppurtunity to act bolder than they otherwise could

I fail to see why dependency on China is preferable to dependency on the US. Surely this is simply shifting the focus of a problem rather than solving the root causes ie the need for the economy to be propped up by a self-serving foreign power.



Unlike capitalists, socialists do not discriminate between citizens of one country and citizens of the world in general.I can't speak for other socialists, but I believe a country has the moral obligation of exploiting it's resources for the greater good of the world.

oh come on, you believe a country with Venezuela's GDP should be giving oil at discounted prices to an economy like London?!? There is more than enough wealth within London to finance this kind of project, it does not need to come from the resources of a country with Venezuela's problems where huge numbers of people are living in terrible poverty. I guess you think Iraq should give us thier oil cheap too then...maybe Bush was just "liberating" it so that those selfish nationalistic bigots in Iraq couldn't hog it all for themselves.<_<


Under Mr. Chavez Venezuela is selling her oil at a higher price, because it has lowered production to drive up the cost, so he is using the extra money to fund projects he views as a worthy cause. I really don't see what the problem is, it not like we are putting a gun to their head, like we used to basically do.

When did we put a gun to their head? What used to happen was, politicians and/or corporations would work out ways to scratch each others backs with their people's wealth...kind of like what's happening now in fact!


Also, it not like it is a one way thing. Did you not read the part what said, "London will provide specialist technical assistance to Venezuelan cities in areas such transport, protection of the environment, development of tourism, and town planning"?


"The part what said"...facking hell are we in an episode of EastEnders now. ;)

But seriosuly, do you buy that crap? How long will Ken be in power for. What exactly are we going to help them do, which is so valuable that they are giving away their oil for it, and which could not be obtained from simply using oil revenues and not making a high-profile agreement with an attention whore populist politician?


I don't remember this being a problem after Hurricane Katrina. After Hurricane Katrina Venezuela was one of the first foreign governments to offer aid to the devastated regions. At first Bush refuse this aid, but he realised later the winter was going to set in, so the U.S. could do with subsidised oil mainly for heating, low income families and the badly affected. The US is still getting this subsidy of cheap oil now.

So you can't see the difference between New Orleans after Hurricaine Katrina and London today? Also, that action by Chavez was again political posturing. The US govt. had the means to help those people if they wanted to, Chavez knew this, the whole point was to score points against Bush. Fair enough, but look, do we really want leaders who use their country's oil for political and personal purposes? In the long run is this really a sustainable way to run a country? Haven't we seen this type of thing end in disaster countless times before?

[s'box]

oh come on, you believe a country with Venezuela's GDP should be giving oil at discounted prices to an economy like London?!? There is more than enough wealth within London to finance this kind of project, it does not need to come from the resources of a country with Venezuela's problems where huge numbers of people are living in terrible poverty. I guess you think Iraq should give us thier oil cheap too then...maybe Bush was just "liberating" it so that those selfish nationalistic bigots in Iraq couldn't hog it all for themselves.

The idea is that its not london getting cheap oil, its poor londoners getting the benefits of cheap oil. Your argument rests on london being this rich monolithic entity which chavez is giving oil to, but the premise behind this is just the opposite, that poor londoners are also in need of aid, aid which their own government wont give them, even though they have the money. So this is far from a large capitalist country or even municipality benefitting off its wealth and gaining more wealth from it, if theyre saving millions of dollars as the article claims its just the opposite.

A lot of it would just be political gain for both sides, the mayor of London gains the prospect of hundreds of thousands of londoners perhaps crediting him for a few extra dollars in their pockets, which is a nice deal for political gain. Perhaps theres some political holdup that kept the london mayor from doing it otherwise (i know here at least the public transit prices are this headless beast that leads to prices rising from some horrible series of laws that were passed years ago which were either really poorly thought out or deliberate conservative sabotage to the point where every politician claims to be completely powerless about the whole thing, and so the prices went up and we're all screwed (a bit of a side rant, but i think they lost money from rising the prices due to rider loss, serves the bastards right)

and venezuela of course continues its campaign where it aids the poor of all countries, on an ideology that even though london on average has some gdp massively greater than venezuelas, its poor citizens are suffering the yoke of capitalist oppression. You assert that london could easily do this itself, and it damn well could, but its not, which works wonders for the idea of rich greedy capitalist countries that horde all their wealth in the top percentage wise leaving their poor out to dry rather than give them anything at all.

Overall I'd say its mostly a political move thats not very significant to either venezuela or london. Chavez wanted a way to improve infrastructure, and found a way to gain it both cheaper than he might have otherwise and within the context of an already existing (yes a lot of its just propaganda) campaign to help the world (that includes british) poor.


Fair enough, but look, do we really want leaders who use their country's oil for political and personal purposes? In the long run is this really a sustainable way to run a country? Haven't we seen this type of thing end in disaster countless times before?

Politics are oil these days, Its likely not sustainable, much like the whole oil deal in general, but in most countries the relations between oil and politicians are pretty solid, except it takes on the profitable headless beast phenomenon which leaves a lot of people screwed. I'd much rather have politicians using oil than have oil using politicians.

[demagogic_schizoid]

The idea is that its not london getting cheap oil, its poor londoners getting the benefits of cheap oil. Your argument rests on london being this rich monolithic entity which chavez is giving oil to, but the premise behind this is just the opposite, that poor londoners are also in need of aid, aid which their own government wont give them, even though they have the money.

Well, you are overlooking the fact that the UK has one of the most advanced welfare states in the world, while Venezuela doesn't and while I'm all for increased aid to Britain's poor, it is ridiculous for this to come from a country with much higher levels of absolute poverty, relative poverty, unemployment and inflation. Haven't you heard of prioritising? Call me a nationalistic bigot but I would be quite annoyed if I was living in a shanty-twon in Venezuela and read that my President was giving aid to people in the first world who were in much less need of it than myself.

Also, this argument is in fact a criticism of the Mayor of London, who is in charge of a city with a GDP per head of $50 000, but yet accepts aid from Venezuela rather than risk the unpopularity of raising the funds at home needed for this project (much of which could be acheived by cutting out many wasteful political projects he has implemented such as his own newspaper/propaganda rag called The Londoner, funded directly by the taxpayer)


and venezuela of course continues its campaign where it aids the poor of all countries, on an ideology that even though london on average has some gdp massively greater than venezuelas, its poor citizens are suffering the yoke of capitalist oppression.

Much less than Venezuela's I would argue. What you call "socialism", Chavez's "socialism", consists of railing aginst Yanqui imperialism, selling non-renewable resources on the world market at market prices for the benefit of the first world, while subsidizing 12,048 heating bills in London and Boston while handing out free band-aids and chickens in Curacas.

When alternative energy becomes cost-efficient Venezuela will become really poor (as opposed to poor) overnight, because Hugo's "socialism' has nothing to do with producing wealth. There is no coherent plan for the development of Venezuela. It's just an "oil-shower" and London's Mayor is filling his boots.




You assert that london could easily do this itself, and it damn well could, but its not, which works wonders for the idea of rich greedy capitalist countries that horde all their wealth in the top percentage wise leaving their poor out to dry rather than give them anything at all.

Exactly, this is exactly what London's Mayor, the same one who is taking Venezuela's oil at exploitative prices, is doing.


Overall I'd say its mostly a political move thats not very significant to either venezuela or london. Chavez wanted a way to improve infrastructure, and found a way to gain it both cheaper than he might have otherwise

Only if you believe the press release. But let's look at this without the rose-tinted spectacles. Firstly, money exists for a reason - it's better than the barter economy, it allows for long-term investment, for the building up of funds for meaningful projects. Developing a country's infrastructure "on the cheap" is not sustainable, bartering like this is only good for one-off gestures.

Also, I hate to inform you, but the deal doesn't even actually work in itself. British cities cannot effectively negotiate deals like this because most of their transport was flogged off by the Tories. London doesn't even own it's own transport. I live in London, and I can't think of any bus companies in my area owned by Transport For London, and mine is one of the poorer areas of London which should benefit from this deal but will not in practice.

Also, this deal once confused me because the oil supplies for the buses must have been agreed on longish or at least medium term contracts already, which can't just be torn up (penalty clauses) and how would the oil get here, where would it be stored? Isn't Venezuela a member of OPEC? Is this deal legal by OPEC members's agreements?

But now I see how it works: Chavez pays 20% of the fuel bill for those buses (which ones please?) that TfL does own and in return we send some of our highly paid Greater London Authority staff to Caracas to advise Chavez on making it more like London! it isn't as simple as putting someone on a plane. If only it were. The staff need to be paid and housed and immunised and shipped home if they get ill etc. They usually need a grasp of the language, they need technology while they are there. Even if they didn't set up a department to do this in the GLA, they would need to hire in someone else with the expertise to manage it for them.


Can Ken Livingstone do this legally, turn the GLA into Ken's International Consultants limited? I thought there were some precedents here that local and municipal authorities had to spend funds raised on running their authorities. Hiring out GLA staff as consultants to go and work overseas might be illegal.

Or maybe it is just an excuse for Chavez and Livingstones "Special Advisors" to get free trips to hob nob with each other at the electors' expense. That sounds more likely to me.

I'd like to believe this was sensible or practical but it seems this is just a PR exercise which will soon bit the dust. Then Ken's selective memory will cut in and we will all have "misunderstood" the original plan but by then he will be off on some other loony scheme anyway.

Then what will happen to the "discounts" for the low paid, who don't tell me will be primarily in North London, Ken's old stamping ground and East London

[Lee]

Most likely it will help Venezuela since it should mean an increase in demand for their resource. There's no way it could hurt them. Unless London secretly needs the oil for it's WMDs to wipe the country off the map.It'll hurt them for much the same reason as why foreign aid hurts African nations.

[Ferrus]

Also I think they both recognize Bush as a fading star so other than him why would England care what goes on in a backyard in the Western Hemis.
Besides which Livingstone is a left-wing iconoclast, he'd love nothing more than to nettle the Bush administration, just as he has stuck two fingers up at Thatcher and Blair in his time.

[s'box]

Well, you are overlooking the fact that the UK has one of the most advanced welfare states in the world, while Venezuela doesn't and while I'm all for increased aid to Britain's poor, it is ridiculous for this to come from a country with much higher levels of absolute poverty, relative poverty, unemployment and inflation. Haven't you heard of prioritising? Call me a nationalistic bigot but I would be quite annoyed if I was living in a shanty-twon in Venezuela and read that my President was giving aid to people in the first world who were in much less need of it than myself.

This overlooks venezuelas own burgeoning welfare state, and that this deal is a part of it. First of all, since the chavez government took a firm hold of the oil wealth, those folks in the shanty towns are already getting aid, as well as the people in london, and with better urban development, as helped along by london advisors, some of the conditions that cause such urban troubles will be alleviated.

Theres lots of oil wealth which untill recently was going only to a handful of rich and not going to any poor. Now not only is it going in massive amounts to his own people, he is able to use small amounts to both aid the poor in other countries (of which the aid going to poor in first world countries is likely a meager percentage)

You're protraying this like theres some simple absolutist dichotomy here, where since a little discount is being given to london, the venezeulan people are directly losing out and its simply not the case.


Only if you believe the press release. But let's look at this without the rose-tinted spectacles. Firstly, money exists for a reason - it's better than the barter economy, it allows for long-term investment, for the building up of funds for meaningful projects. Developing a country's infrastructure "on the cheap" is not sustainable, bartering like this is only good for one-off gestures.

It is only a one off gesture. Chavez is using oil wealth for various projects. Him occasionally using less direct means of using that oil rather than directly selling it (he is still selling it regardless) doesn't mean its a widespread policy, and furthermore and more importantly apparently, it doesn't mean at all that the venezuelan government is losing any significant money. Youre really making this little gesture out to be rather dramatic, its not the crux of his social policy, its not a significant portion of venezuelas wealth, and its really not that significant to the long term development of venezuela in the slightest.


Much less than Venezuela's I would argue. What you call "socialism", Chavez's "socialism", consists of railing aginst Yanqui imperialism, selling non-renewable resources on the world market at market prices for the benefit of the first world, while subsidizing 12,048 heating bills in London and Boston while handing out free band-aids and chickens in Curacas.

When alternative energy becomes cost-efficient Venezuela will become really poor (as opposed to poor) overnight, because Hugo's "socialism' has nothing to do with producing wealth. There is no coherent plan for the development of Venezuela. It's just an "oil-shower" and London's Mayor is filling his boots.


When alternative energy becomes cost effecient eh, when is that going to happen exactly? 50 years? 100 years? What are the rest of the worlds plans for all that (they really don't seem to have any)
Thats really stretching and all you're doing is asserting, completely baselessly, that cheap oil for the first world poor means that venezuelans get nothing at all. Theyre getting far more than bandaids and chickens in caracas.
Building up on an economy with the resources you have now so that when you have to switch over you will other industries which were spawned from the wealth you gained as an oil provider, and aided by the good relations you built among municipalities across the world.

Or you could... not use your oil wealth to its fullest at all cause it'll be useless someday therefore it can't be helpful now?


Even if they didn't set up a department to do this in the GLA, they would need to hire in someone else with the expertise to manage it for them.

And here it is exactly, they would need to hire someone else without this deal. and what sort of prices do you think advisory firms capable and willing to help a series of national projects? I'm willing to bet they could easily come up with a bill of over 32 million dollars, which is the discount chavez is giving london. Venezuela is effectively buying advisors, and doing so in such a way that helps the poor, along with the rest of his global campaign.

[demagogic_schizoid]

This overlooks venezuelas own burgeoning welfare state, and that this deal is a part of it. First of all, since the chavez government took a firm hold of the oil wealth, those folks in the shanty towns are already getting aid, as well as the people in london, and with better urban development, as helped along by london advisors, some of the conditions that cause such urban troubles will be alleviated.

Which London developers have experience with shantytowns? The whole thing is nonsense. I'm sure there are enough people in Venezuela, or in countries which could supply advice fora much lower cost than London, which would be able to have advised the Venezuelan government on whichever urban regeneration plan it comes up with. I fail to see exactly what help London can offer Venzeula on this. If it's going to be about transport for instance, all I can say to you is that London had the most expensive transport system in the world, but not the best. Theree are cities in South America, such as Curitiba in Brazil, which have better public services than London and whose advisers could be hired at a fraction of the cost. You should read about Curitiba in fact. They have much more to teach anyone than London's overpriced planners:

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/fellows/brazil1203/

No, the only reason London is being targetted as the benefactor of Venezuela's oil is because it's Mayor and Chavez are friends. This is political corruption played out with wealth which should belong to the people.


Theres lots of oil wealth which untill recently was going only to a handful of rich and not going to any poor.Now not only is it going in massive amounts to his own people, he is able to use small amounts to both aid the poor in other countries (of which the aid going to poor in first world countries is likely a meager percentage)


You say it is going to his people in massive amounts but the stats I have already given on this thread do not back this up. Also, I agree wholeheartedly that it is a meager percentage which he is giving away below the market price to the poor in first world countries, but you are missing the wider question of a city of London's wealth accpeting aid from a country as poor as Venezuela, even if the effects are likely to be minimal. It's a question of principle, this is a ridiculous situation we are in, and I am willing to bet that if it was the US accepting oil from Iraq at this rate that you would be outraged.

You're protraying this like theres some simple absolutist dichotomy here, where since a little discount is being given to london, the venezeulan people are directly losing out and its simply not the case.

This simply is the case! Their natural resources are being given away below the market rate to fund this ridiculous project which will have minimal, if any, effect. Their potential wealth is being squandered and London's self-proclaimed socialist mayor is lending his support to this.


It is only a one off gesture. Chavez is using oil wealth for various projects.

This is a truism. My point is that these projects are populist, inefficient projects which squander his country's great natural wealth for his own short-term political gain.


Him occasionally using less direct means of using that oil rather than directly selling it (he is still selling it regardless)

It's simple bartering, and there is a reason why only his political allies are being offered this - they are getting a better deal than other buyers, a better deal than those who pay the market rate. Don't you see what that means, they are paying less than they should - what Venezuela gets in this instance is NOT what it would get on the market, if it was, Chavez would not make these cosy deals with his allies in the first place, he would simply sell them oil like he does to anyone else.


doesn't mean its a widespread policy,

I didn't say it was widespread, my criticism was of this specific policy. It has the potential to become widespread as Chavez consolidates his position, and even if it doesn't, my criticisms of it are still valid.


Youre really making this little gesture out to be rather dramatic, its not the crux of his social policy, its not a significant portion of venezuelas wealth, and its really not that significant to the long term development of venezuela in the slightest.

It's an indicator of the conduct of the Venezuelan government, but the reason I am concentrating on this one instance is because it involves the Mayor of my city, and I feel implicated by his role in exploiting the Venezuelan people. Whether or not the effects of this one policy will have a great impact is irrelevant, the point is that London's electorate has been implicated in Chavez's misuse of Venezuela's oil.


all you're doing is asserting, completely baselessly, that cheap oil for the first world poor means that venezuelans get nothing at all. Theyre getting far more than bandaids and chickens in caracas.

The statistics speak for themselves, it's not directly becasuse of London that poor Vwnezuelans are being exploited but we are certainly implicated in it. I don't know if they are getting "nothing at all", but I would say they are getting short-term populsim which is only as sustainable as the current oil boom, as opposed to a coherent economic policy to develop the country. Maybe this is in fact less than nothing, it may actually be a huge robbery. Time will tell.


Building up on an economy with the resources you have now so that when you have to switch over you will other industries which were spawned from the wealth you gained as an oil provider, and aided by the good relations you built among municipalities across the world.

Or you could... not use your oil wealth to its fullest at all cause it'll be useless someday therefore it can't be helpful now?


But where is there any evidence that this is happening? This is simply argument by assertion. It seems to me that Chavez is simply using high oil prices to buy immediate political support through handouts, and hide from his people the fact that they are actually losing out in the long run.



And here it is exactly, they would need to hire someone else without this deal. and what sort of prices do you think advisory firms capable and willing to help a series of national projects? I'm willing to bet they could easily come up with a bill of over 32 million dollars, which is the discount chavez is giving london. Venezuela is effectively buying advisors, and doing so in such a way that helps the poor, along with the rest of his global campaign

You missed the point, the GLA is London's municipal government. As for Venezuela hiring someone else, I have already suggested Curitiba. But for the record, there are plenty of other better run and cheaper cities than London which could therefore provide better advice at a lower cost, if Venezuela even actually needs this advice in the first place.

[Lee]

If I am even kind enough to assume Chavez is genuine, he'll soon feel the pinch of his policies. He has engineered a political system where an ever smaller group of people will be responsible for him maintaining power, and soon they'll start making demands. He'll either be deposed for a leader with less scruples, or he'll go down in history as a vicious dictator by the end.

The fanfare and naive high hopes surrounding Chavez are almost identical to those that surrounded Mugabe years ago.

Oil is a curse for developing nations, not a blessing, since it allows politicians to maintain power and wealth irrespective of how they treat their people. Take note of Hong Kong, or Taiwan (at least until more recently). A lack of natural resources forces politicians to enact smart policies which benefit the majority of the populace, an abundance of natural resources allows them to ride on in prosperity and oppress opposition regardless of the well-being of the populace.

They are also beginning to feel the consequences of the price controls, supposedly to help the poor, have already begun to quench supply as goods start disappearing from supermarket shelfs.

I sincerely hope Venezuela does not go the way of Zimbabwe, Cuba or similar nations, we should not need to learn that lesson again.